RAM ASHREY Vs. SULEKH CHAND SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant to assail the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2014 passed by the First Appellate Court, namely, ADJ -02, NE, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RCA No. 43/2014 preferred by the appellant/defendant. By the impugned judgment, the said first appeal has been dismissed. The first appeal had been preferred by the appellant/defendant to assail the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013 passed by the Trial Court, namely, ACJ -cum -ARC (NE), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Suit No. 573/2007 filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The said suit had been filed to seek recovery of possession of the suit property, as well as recovery of rent of Rs. 55,000/ - and damages @ Rs. 5,000/ - p.m.

(2.) THE case of the respondent/plaintiff was that he had purchased the suit property bearing no.X -182/13, Gali No. 9, Brahampuri, Delhi -110053 from Ms. Jai Devi - wife of the defendant, for consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/ - by way of a registered power of attorney, registered will, receipt, agreement to sell and affidavit, all executed on 24.04.2004 in favour of the plaintiff by Jai Devi. The plaintiff claimed that Jai Devi had handed over physical possession of the property to the plaintiff on 24.04.2004. The defendant/husband of the erstwhile owner Jai Devi requested the plaintiff to give the suit property on rent and, accordingly, the plaintiff created a tenancy in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property @ Rs. 5,000/ - p.m. excluding electricity and other charges vide agreement dated 24.04.2004. The said agreement had been executed between the parties. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was in arrears of rent since November 2006 and the amount had not been paid despite demand. The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 13.07.2007, which was not complied with by the defendant. He sent a false reply to the said notice. The plaintiff called upon the defendant to vacate the premises and to pay the arrears of rent and mesne profits with electricity charges. Since this demand was not met, the plaintiff preferred the suit.

(3.) IN the said suit, the defendant in the present suit (plaintiff in the said suit) had sought the relief that his signed blank papers be declared to be null and void, and he be handed over the property documents and three blank signed cheques. He had also sought a restraint against his dispossession from the suit property. He also denied the execution of the registered GPA, the will, receipt, agreement to sell by his wife in favour of the plaintiff herein. He also denied the execution of the rent agreement dated 24.04.2004 and 24.03.2006 between the parties.